Although it may not be possible to stop an active shooter from being an active shooter, it is possible to lower the number of casualties by reducing the danger to which potential victims may be exposed.
In an excerpt from a New York Police Department active shootings analysis; “Research has determined that [shooting an assailant] is the most effective countermeasure in stopping an active shooter.[1]” According to armed protection professionals “a trained individual operating a firearm is the single most effective means available to immediately stop a physical attack…bar none[2]”. Given the above,notwithstanding social stigma or political agenda, one may logically conclude that the very best defensive response against any active shooter is a firearm operated by a qualified individual.
The corollary to this is that any other defensive option, failing a firearm, is considered inferior by comparison. As such parents have great difficulty swallowing the company line of school administrators that their child is denied optimal protection and relegated to inferior protection by policy. Employees working on corporate campuses are unfortunately subjected to similar doctrine.
Exploring a readily-available and cost-effective solution to the active shooter problem, let’s focus on an existing and proven methodology which is already being successfully applied in a parallel high threat arena – civilian aircraft protection.
In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the United States, authorities with full knowledge of the above introduced a highly effective strategy still in service today. It was a two-pronged approach which included ramping up the US Federal Air Marshals (FAM) program both in numbers and in firearms skills, as well as arming pilots and co-pilots as Federal Flight Deck Officers (FFDOs) and training them to be proficient with firearms.
Air travel was made safer as a result and more than a decade since that program was implemented there has been no similar incident in the 27,000-30,000 commercial flights that fly every day in the US. It was made public information and every would-be hijacker now knows that he runs the risk of being shot.
Attempts have been made to emulate this proven strategy on the ground. Instead of increasing the number of FAMs, increase the number of undercover armed police officers or armed security guards. Not enough of these to go around you say? Well you’re absolutely right about that! Just as there are not enough FAMS to go around for every flight, there aren’t enough armed police officers or security guards to cover every single public and private building. Instead, trained firepower response was extended to the FFDOs, just as it could be extended right now to qualifying individuals.
Thinking outside the box, several “traditional schools” have recently installed non-sworn, responsible “On Site Responders (OSRs)” who have already undergone background investigations, are extensively trained, legally own and are already licensed to carry a firearm. Many are retired law enforcement officers or federal agents themselves who have been professionally trained and continually train to maintain proficiency.[3] As of this writing most remain anonymous in order to protect program integrity and nobody, including the building occupants, would ever know who or where these vetted protection resources are.
The most bought into argument against OSRs is “What happens when the cavalry arrives during the crisis, how will authorities differentiate between active shooter and OSR?” The answer is the same emergency response method utilized by federal agencies –every trained operator carries a pre-approved neck badge which, when presented from under a cover garment, clearly identifies the OSR as a friendly[4]. The US Secret Service has used this protective measure effectively since 1865.
Given the above program and akin to civilian aircraft hijackers, any would-be active shooter would know that even if there weren’t visibly armed police or security officers “on board” that there would be at least one well-trained OSR armed with a firearm, which sends a loud and clear message; “If you are a deadly threat on these premises you will be stopped.”
Throughout the professional law enforcement community there is a limited number of OSR availability. Conversely, there are an exponentially greater number of civilians, such as former law enforcement, former military and competitive shooters, who regularly train at the professional level. Why not utilize this existing and abundant resource? There are superb training programs out there already implemented, with all the bugs worked out and running like a top[5] – no need to reinvent the wheel here.
The FAM/ FFDO strategy is a proven and successful methodology. Pilots are not cops, yet they are trained to safely and effective handle a firearm. Legally armed and vetted citizens pre-trained and licensed to carry are currently not allowed to carry in so-called “gun-free zones.” Active shooters specifically look for those declarations because they know that they will be the only one shooting until the cops get there.[6]
Such “gun-free” policies are now being carefully scrutinized by security professionals who must address the fact that there are more than 350 million legally owned guns in America versus a comparable number of illegal guns which is anybody’s guess. Consequentially, as parents of college students have expressed anxiety over accepting that their children are relegated to inferior protective efforts, the same concern is echoed in an excerpt from The Atlantic magazine:
“The existence of these policies suggests that universities know they cannot protect their students during an armed attack. And yet, these schools will not allow adults with state-issued concealed-carry permits to bring their weapons onto campus, as they would be able to almost anywhere else. To gun-rights advocates, these policies are absurd. “The fact that universities are providing their faculties and students with this sort of information is, of course, an admission that they can’t protect them,” … “The universities are unable to protect people, but then they disable people from protecting themselves.” It is also illogical for campuses to advertise themselves as “gun-free.” Someone bent on murder is not usually dissuaded by posted anti-gun regulations. Quite the opposite—publicly describing your property as gun-free is analogous to posting a notice on your front door saying your home has no burglar alarm.”[7]
Moving forward, we as a society of concerned citizens would be remiss in our failure to consider the pros and cons of responsible OSRs – upstanding members of our community who are already legally carrying, professionally trained, competent and safe with firearms in providing the most effective response option available for protection against an active shooter.
~ Steve Tarani
Professional Educator, Author, Keynote Speaker
[1] Active Shooter: Recommendations and Analysis for Risk Mitigation, NYPD, 2012; http://www.nypdshield.org/public/SiteFiles/documents/Activeshooter.pdf
[2] PreFense:The 90% Advantage, by Steve Tarani, January 2014, http://www.preventativedefense.com/book/
[3] Firearms operation, like any other specialized physical skill, is a perishable skill and as such must be maintained to meet qualifying performance requirements.
[4] Under duress even the most highly trained first responders focus on the weapon upon making entry, which is the exact reason why neck badges (as opposed to waistline badges) are preferred as they present closest to the weapon.
[5] The author, having access to and participation in the implementation of these programs, invites inquiries.
[6] Prior to the July 20, 2012 shooting, which resulted in 12 people killed and 70 injured, the Century 16 Cineplex in Aurora, Colorado declared the property a gun-free zone.
[7] The Case for More Guns (and More Gun Control) | The Atlantic | Jeffrey Goldberg | December 2012 http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/12/the-case-for-more-guns-and-more-gun-control/309161/
Hi Steve,
Thanks for backing up your article with a fact and logic based argument and approach. I think here you are “preaching to the choir” but the “choir” needs trusted and backed sources to go out and make the case for positive change in our communities. Aggressive, Pro-Gun bumper stickers are fun, but they don’t sway the opinion of large organizational leaders nor do they provide an effective solution to organizations under social or pubic scrutiny. Your message can achieve the same desired result across a broader spectrum.
Please keep it up and I hope you can get the word out to the widest audience possible. I think there are many receptive ears to what you are saying, even if they don’t immediately admit it publically.
Thanks,
Mike